User talk:DrZoidberg/Archive2

Vote for adminship

Zoidberg, I'm sorry for the late vote, but I supported you with an "extremely strong support". See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrZoidberg. Now you have two votes supporting you! Righteous Monkey 20:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, I was just about to vote support and they've removed it. Never mind. I hereby give you the power to ban me anytime you want! the wub "?/!" 21:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, my campaign was unsuccessful. Time to look ahead to the next election and decide who the Sandboxian party should nominate next! DrZoidberg 22:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoid, uh, I believe in fun, but do write articles and try to discover or read the encyclopedia. I don't see any harm with what you do though.--Jondel 00:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's articles here? Since when? DrZoidberg 00:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Jondel, thanks for the recommendation. I'll try editing a few articles and do some useful edits (I've never touched an article before!). DrZoidberg, maybe you would also like to start editing some articles. Anyways, sandboxians are also Wikipedians, but the sandbox still must be tended with loving care! -- Righteous Monkey 05:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't the sandbox count as an article? DrZoidberg 17:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Please play nice in the sandbox. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*throws sand* DrZoidberg 19:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Stop putting 99 bottles of beer on the wall in the sandbox. It is for testing, not for you playing. Please really contribute to wikipedia. When you fill up the sandbox like that, it can discourage new users who don't want to wait forever for your song to load. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'll stop. I'm sorry. Thank you for your advice. DrZoidberg 20:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

where are you frum

Are you from SparkNotes 69.115.115.236 18:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. DrZoidberg 06:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are from Manitoba?

Hey, I saw that you were from Winnepeg, Canada in one of your edits. Is that true? Righteous Monkey 16:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING! WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO!! Unless, of course, Fry did it. DrZoidberg 20:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck? Why are you deleting the sandbox? I want the sandbox to stay!!! Righteous Monkey 20:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING! WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO!! Unless, of course, Fry did it. DrZoidberg 20:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sandbox

I'm not sure what you did here, but please don't do it again. It's really disruptive. Thank you! Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I seem to have found an error in the sandbox. Should I report the situation to the local authorities? DrZoidberg 16:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DrZoidberg, please discontinue your edits to Wikipedia:Sandbox. The purpose of the sandbox is to provide a place for new users to learn how the wiki works. Because you are not a new user, and because you are not using the page for learning how the wiki works, your edits are inappropriate. You may wish to consider continuing your edits at User:DrZoidberg/sandbox, although it is possible that this too may be frowned upon by the community. You also may wish to set up a humor-oriented wiki of your very own at wikicities. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a little extreme - Zoidberg isn't damaging anything, and I like his brand of humor. He hasn't violated policy. However, making the sandbox give an error is definitely a blockable offense. Nickptar 21:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ditto. There is no such rule that people can not fool around in the sandbox. In fact Angela said so. (Ask her). There should be some fun in wikipedia. A sandbox is a sandbox. Anyone can write anything so long as it is not offensive. Please don't take wikipedia too seriously. --Jondel 00:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The chief problem is that some of Dr. Zoidberg's edits to the sandbox have rendered it unusable (until an admin is able to undo the damage). Fooling around in the sandbox is relatively harmless. Breaking the sandbox can inconvenience and confuse new editors, and isn't acceptable here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoid please don't break the sandbox and be careful. Do report the flaw to the local authorities(you'd be contributing something then) . You've gone a little bit too far. Contribuez svp. Veuillez établir votre réputation.--Jondel 01:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed something! Around a week ago I split Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Sandbox In-sand-ity. into 32k archives! DrZoidberg 12:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of my indefinite block

I wish to appeal David Gerard's unilateral decision to kick me out of Wikipedia forever. Could someone please direct me to the Wikipedia equivalent of the Court of Appeals? DrZoidberg 12:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While any admin could technically unblock you, I doubt you'll get much sympathy considering you intentionally broke the Sandbox three times, plus have not been a contributor to the main encyclopedia. Time to grow up.

If none of the admins will unblock you, your next appeal might be to Jimbo Wales himself. I would not encourage that because this block will likely turn into a hard-ban (meaning any account you use can be blocked and all of your edits can be reverted). Jimbo has been known to be even less tolerant for pain-in-the-ass non-contributors. -- Netoholic @ 15:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The third time the sandbox broke was an accident, I mistakingly clicked "Save Page" twice and it submitted the same edit twice (check the history and notice the identical edit summaries). Another error to report...?
After I realized that my posts had smushified the sandbox, I stopped.
Isn't the sandbox the correct place to do these kinds of test posts?

DrZoidberg 15:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is for new editors to try out how a wiki works. You intentionally broke that, as stated clearly in your edit summaries. But you know all this already. -- Netoholic @ 15:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to your above statement, I have not edited the main encyclopedia, so I qualify as a new editor. My posts were to try out how the wiki works, and by doing so I was successful in learning something. Once I determined that my test worked, I stopped. DrZoidberg 15:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox is there for new Wikipedians to test the basics of Wiki editing, and–in principle–for old Wikipedians to test new formatting ideas (more often than not, however, they will conduct such tests on a subpage in their own user space.)

All of those tests are done in anticipation of editing Wikipedia articles and contributing to the encyclopedia. You haven't demonstrated any interest in doing so, after many months and more than a thousand edits to the sandbox. Moreover, some of your recent edits to the sandbox have rendered it impossible for new Wikipedians to use at all.

If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, the easiest solution might be to start fresh with a new account, start making beneficial edits and contributions, and stay out of the sandbox. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to have fun and to entertain, not to crash Wikipedia. (Believe me, if I did intend to crash Wikipedia, I would have done so by now). I have not violated any rules here on Wikipedia and it is for that reason that I am appealing my indefinite block. DrZoidberg 16:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Wikipedia isn't here to let you have fun and entertain—the servers, bandwidth, and editors are here to write an encyclopedia. I appreciate that you're not usually trying to be disruptive, but some of your edits have had that effect. Since you haven't shown any interest in the purpose of this project–building an encyclopedia–it's difficult to justify letting you continue to play. If you would like to start a comedy sandbox, there are outside providers of free wiki hosting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia:No fun allowed policy. DrZoidberg 17:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to test stuff that kills the server as such, you should of did it on User:DrZoidberg/Sandbox. And the WikiCourt of Appeals would have to be... RfAr. But you can't make a case there unless someone unblocks you. And I have no intention of doing so. Redwolf24 23:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an unblock

DrZoidberg, I know how being blocked can be really stressful and shameful. You need to understand why you're being blocked. You do not just place nonsense the sandbox. You also post them in places where it is undesirable. The reasons are:

Dumping large amounts of text in the sandbox, making people's browser's freeze (and also, [1])
Annoying people at the Village Pump on purpose
Posting nonsense on the Main Page talk page
Nominating yourself for adminship and voting for yourself
VANDALIZING templates

If an admin decides to unblock, you promise that you will not:

Dump large amounts of text in the sandbox
Vandalize templates
Stop childish/trolling behavior on RfA's and the Village Pump
Edit articles - useful edits please
Play nice in the sandbox (e.g., harmless comments and sandbox patroling

Thank you. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And most seriously of all, you are wasting the Wikimedia Foundation's donation money. That is the main reason why you've been blocked. Wasting donation money should be something for you to think about. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone explain how he's wasting donation money... Redwolf24 00:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's not. He's wasting newbies. Get real, everyone, the problem is that the sandbox is there for newbies to experiment with. Zoidberg is interfering with that, and though we've tolerated it in the past, this is more than we should tolerate. Zoidberg, you want to break the software, then fine, set up your own copy of mediawiki and have at it. Or use the test wiki. Not the sandbox. This is not about Wikipedia:No fun allowed, it is about having a sense of responsibility. You've got to take your hat off long enough to appreciate that. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a test wiki? Where would I find it? DrZoidberg 02:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Don't know about test wikpedia but there's uncyclopedia and comedy --Jondel 03:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- It was formerly at test.wikipedia.org but is gone. The developers sometimes use it. You may also be interested in anarchopedia.

My rebuttals

Dumping large amounts of text in the sandbox, making people's browser's freeze: The error you are getting has nothing to do with large amounts of text. I just found a way to make it display that error message. That's why I tested it in the sandbox and not in an article. And now that I know it works, I don't do it anymore.

Why'd you do it twice or thrice and use edit summaries like "Sandbox go squish", then? Nickptar 05:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying people at the Village Pump on purpose: May I ask what is so annoying about me using the Village Pump to suggest new ideas relating to the Sandbox?
Posting nonsense on the Main Page talk page: If you read my posts, you'll realize that they are not nonsense. I was proposing to put a link to the Sandbox back on the Main Page.
Nominating yourself for adminship and voting for yourself: What's wrong with nominating myself for admin? The whole point of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is for potential administrators to see if the Wikipedia community approves of them. That's exactly what I did. And as a Wikipedian who has over 1000 edits and has been here for 9 months, I have the right to vote.
VANDALIZING templates: It's called FUN. My edit was funny. Feel free to add it to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Sandbox In-sand-ity..
That's vandalism. It's fun, but it's vandalism — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DrZoidberg 03:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To help Wikipedia

You can help Wikipedia by Stub sorting and/or fix Double redirects RV bad edits like page blanking. My Cat inn 04:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated to DrZoidberg

This just popped into my head (well, anyway for what 's worth.....).

You've reached the end of the line
Time to to get off the train.
Time to make a contribrution
or face retribrution.

I hate to see you blocked.
but almost everyone I've talked to, want you stopped.

It's time to grow up.
Face your pain
You'll find strength as you do so.
Only then will you find
genuine fun.

DrZoidberg has been blocked from editing due, primarily, to a pattern of disruptive edits to the Wikipedia:Sandbox.

Help please

I can tell that the Wikipedia community is split over the debate of my permanent block. As it is impossible for me to post outside of this talk page, I am asking a favor of anyone who reads this message:

If you are in support of my block being lifted: Would someone please post at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to sort this mess out? I was blocked as a result of the unilateral decision of David Gerard, and I would like to return to the Wikipedia community, however, a permanent block all but stops me from presenting my case.
If you oppose my block being lifted: Feel free to express your side of the story, but do not delete this message or anything else on my talk page. I am blocked, not banned, and I do have the right to express myself on my talk page.

On a side note, User:DOCTER ZOIDBURG is not a sockpuppet of me. I have one account only (ie. the one I am using now) and I do not intend to ever have any more. If there is a way to check the IP address that posts come from, someone please do so to verify this.

DrZoidberg 03:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does Mister Zoidberg Treason on Wheels! have anything to do with you? DarthVader 09:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Like I said above, I have not, and will never, create any other accounts. Is there any way for admins and/or developers to check the IP address that edits come from in order to prove this? DrZoidberg 16:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoid,

First of all its not what you want, its what they want. What do you think wikipedia wants? You have to focus on that.

About the arbitration, Angela, who is second in command to Jimbo himself said she is not willing to unban (I know you are only blocked)you. Also David G is an arbitrator. They don't really act unilateraly . Plus the many administrators who oppose you .

The headers were also vandalized. Are you aware of this?.

Sure, you can push for an arbitration but this will drain us a lot. Besides you need to contribute and contribute a lot in the order of 10 to a hundred articles just like the rest of us. Not just your hangman game or In-sandity page. Sand box edits don't count. Economics (supply and demand) rules.

About the administorship. Wikipedians who don't participate in Vfds, issues, protection from vandalism, etc. are bit being glib, indifferent or unconcerned. Even edit wars are good when people are trying to establish the truth (as opposed to ideological, ego or opinion based wars). When the ship is sunk , it doesn't matter who's fault it is. While the ship is floating, do be concerned if there are leaks. If you are a member of any organization , you need to be concerned about keeping the org working.(Keep the train wreck moving). It is offensive/insulting for you to apply for administratorship considering that there are many others with contributions who've applied and failed, plus your non-participation in the issues.

I don't want to lecture too much because it takes the fun out of things and it is a fundamental component to everything. C'est pour ton bien.

Please understand that even if you survive as a regular contributor, there are very few wikipedians who have not encountered trolls, disputes, unfair accusations, etc. This is a free open source community available to both sincere contributers and evil, malicious persons all over the world. Considering the huge number of vandals and trolling, people here (wiki)have to be a bit strict. Be very sure you want to be a wikipedian.

I can try to support you but we really need to be assured that you will contribute and that you will be very careful with the sandbox.

A bientot.

--Jondel 01:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably - give Zoidberg a final chance. He seems to learn that large text dumps and breaking servers are inappropriate behavior. If he does that again, then I will strongly support a ban. Otherwise, maybe give DrZoidberg a chance. Without him, the sandbox will be totally occupied by the "Fonz". Anyways, we may want to unban him, but with caution. I am not actually supporting this, but I am "in the middle" (i.e., neutral). Take this as an opinion that I do not support at all. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I support a ban. I mean, why use Wikipedia when you have a bunch of nonsense websites everywhere? — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Zoid, there are other interesting web communites and wikipedia cities for comedy. We can try very hard to unblock you but those who will support you need to be assured of your contributions. --Jondel 06:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the block. My experiences with him have not been on good terms and I also hear many complaints. Also, the socks are not helping. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I haven't seen some work raking the sandbox, but breaking it outright (or moving it- if it were one of your first edits it would be one thing, but after eight months here you should know better!) is simply not acceptable. I say block for a little while (two weeks or so,) and if destructive edits continue, then permanently ban. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Referring to the evidence on this users talk page, it appears as though a couple of the evidence items are irrelevant. The Annoying people at the Village Pump on purpose and Posting nonsense on the Main Page talk page are extremely minor, if even breaking any rule at all. It looks to me as if the user was acting in good faith. I think that the nominating the users self for adminship was also in good faith. The vote for the users self would not be counted, so the user didn't harm anyone by voting. Perhaps the user was unaware that he/she should not vote for him/herself. As for the 'Vandalising templates' and the dumping of the large amount of text into the sandbox, these are obviously annoying, but I believe they don't warrant a ban of more than 1 month. I would agree with Y0u and say that this user deserves a 2 week block to have a cooling off period. Perhaps the behaviour will improve after this time. DarthVader 23:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we get him unblocked, ok, but the same thing will repeat itself. I need to see or be assured that he will indeed contribute valid edits or decent articles then can we act. (There are a gazillion things to write about). Quoting Angela:' Wikipedia is not a playground'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at heart. People have to 'want' to contribute. Zoidberg, please contribute. --Jondel 00:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with Jondel. Maybe a last chance for Zoidberg, but permanently ban if bad behavior continues. — Stevey7788 (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that we my have been slightly too harsh on DrZoidberg. This is one of the first times that he hasn't been posting funny comments like "anchovies are extinct", and he is obviously getting stressed out. But he needs to contribute, not just play. Breaking the sandbox repeadtedly also does not make him very mature. Maybe, just maybe - unblock? I'm not sure about this. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only way that we can see how this user will act after being unblocked is to actually unblock him. The user should be unblocked in a couple of weeks under the agreement that any further 'nonsense' editing will be met with some sort of ban (for a few months at least). The behaviour at the moment is not at a level that warrants a ban. There is a very good chance that the contributions will improve, and like Stevey7788 says, the user has decided not to add funny comments to this page. This is a sign of the user being forced to seriously consider the matter, and I am convinced that the user would take any form of agreement after being unblocked seriously. DarthVader 09:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So...

...I'm supposed to "contribute"? What exactly would I have to "contribute"? DrZoidberg 16:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an Encylopedia that anyone can edit. See Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, a good place to start. You can help by reverting vandalism, fixing typos, researching and contributing information, etc. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 17:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I was fixing vandalism before I was blocked. People would get rid of the sandbox header all the time, and I would be right there to put it back! DrZoidberg 18:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's great- until you moved the sandbox, I saw no reason that you should be blocked for any extended period of time. However, you did break the sandbox a few times as well. If you are unblocked, I would recommend contributing to the encylopedia proper. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Stevey said it much better than I could. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The sandbox move was an accident. After I realized that I had farked up the sandbox, I posted a request to undelete the new sandbox and move it back to preserve the history. [2]. As for the times the sandbox broke, I guess my test worked, so now I know that doing that is a bad thing. DrZoidberg 20:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's write articles!

Good boy, Zoidberg. I have no intention of being your enemy, and I really want you to know that you can still play in the sandbox, but you MUST contribute something. Be bold. Don't think you'll make mistakes when you edit articles.

Click on the Random page tab on the left-hand corner, edit articles (whether fixing article mistakes or expanding articles), and enjoy your edits. I'm not saying that you can't edit the sandbox now - fun is an important part of Wikipedia, but don't overdo it. Play with Fonzie Fan, post your Spongebob images in there, fool around with Jondel's LAZY KAT and "George Strassor" - but contribute to Wikipedia while playing in the sandbox. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have more questions. Thanks! — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all forget what you did - you dumped lots of useless text, vandalized templates, etc.; but now I trust you've learned and won't ever do these mistakes again. I am glad to see a new Zoidberg, a more mature Zoidberg - but don't forget sandbox fun! Be someone like Jondel: Get wild in the sandbox, edit articles and enjoy life. Happy editing! — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does Sandbox In-sand-ity count as an article? I occasionally like to put funny stuff I found in the sandbox there. DrZoidberg 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anything with "Wikipedia:", "User:", or ":" in it is not an article. Try editing, for example, skyscraper. Or edit Modesto, California, neodymium magnet, pig, or game hen. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]